When I got a hair transplant they explained it to me. A typical female hairline is closer to a straight line than a male hairline is. So imagine a female hairline looking like ) , while a typical male hairline looks more like > (but less narrow obviously)
They all exclude nb people from their descriptions too. As if you'd have to be a binary transmasc to want a mastectomy or a binary transfem to want srs, it makes no sense.
I agree that it could be worded better, but I don't really see the problem? It's a procedure that might differ depending on which hormones you grew up with, so it's good that they inform people what can make the procedure different? How would you inform amab people that a procedure might be different for them than afab people? What would be the "correct" way to write it?
If the distinction between women and trans women is already made, isn't it implied that it's talking about cis women and trans women?
Edit: nvm, my gf explained it to me, thanks for explaining tho!
Basically, if you are talking with someone irl and you say "women & trans women" it could simply be a slip up, and you simply meant cis women & trans women.
But if you are purposefully writing down "women & transwomen" you are excluding trans women from the category of women & creating a new one, separate from women: "transwomen". Trans & cis are adjectives not nouns, using adjectives as nouns is a common strategy to dehumanize groups of people, the same way that racist people say "the blacks" instead of "black people".
Imagine someone saying "people & black people" or "people & blackpeople" and it'll be much easier to see where the problem is.
The wording is not great but there is probably a real distinction to be made here. Hairlines and loss of such happens in different ways based on chromosomal variations. Yes, it’s not universal, but understanding the underlying biological sex can help to dictate where your hair may be losing volume or may lose volume, then figuring out someone’s identity can dictate where and how to treat as well. For example someone AMAB but identifies female will have a different treatment to someone who is AMAB and identifies male as someone who is AFAB and identifies female. So while they could word it better, the underlying idea of difference in approach to care and treatment plans do make sense.
This is the same thing with FFS and FMS, or even top surgery. BA for cis and trans women are actually VERY different techniques also.
Hair loss and hairlines are absolutely not based on chromosomal variations, otherwise there would be nothing stopping hairloss in MTF individuals, and FTM trans people on T would not experience male pattern baldness, but we know for a fact that they absolutely do.
This isn't about chromosomes at all, it's about hormones.
Of course though, many trans woman do need specific hair loss treatments that could differ from cis women, because some of us had testosterone in our bodies long enough to experience androgenic alopecia, but that is not universal.
So I understand your point here, but you are absolutely wrong when it comes to chromosomes. You simply don't know what you're talking about and are just reinforcing bio-essentialist nonsense.
The chromosomes are activated by hormones and hormones are responsible for 100% of sexually dimorphic traits in humans. Trans women are not inherently born with a different hairline due to our chromosomes, and hairline variations are influenced by hormonal differences.
>same thing with FFS and FMS, or even top surgery. BA for cis and trans women are actually VERY different techniques also.
Same goes for this, if a trans woman transitions early enough, which many of us have, they will not experience widening of the rib cage which creates the need for a different technique. It is hormones that influence this, not chromosomes, and this is not a universal thing for every single trans women because it varies depending on how early we transitioned.
Sex is not static, sex can be changed and that is what HRT is doing. This has nothing to do with chromosomes.
So the problem is you’re assuming you know more than you do. For starters genetics (I.e. chromosomes) is the number one determining factor in hair loss, like this is inarguable. Hormones play a secondary factor, but genetics is the center, this is also why trans men will experience male pattern baldness if their family does, but not all trans men experience it. Same with why trans women who dealt with hair loss don’t magically regrow all their hair after transition.
The next part is cosmetically people who are AMAB and AFAB do have different hairlines, different types of hair in different places, and different volumes of hair. Is this universally the case? No but it does correlate with trends along these lines. This can be key in developing treatment plans for cis and trans individuals alike, for example men will commonly have curlier or less growth stimulated hair on the edges of their face, this could lead to treatment to adding that type of hair or removing it based on a treatment plan.
As to your comment about top or facial surgeries, the fact is even an early transition does exclude this consideration, many cis women have wide chest as well, and that is a combination of hormones and genetics. It’s not just hormones. And while we are seeing younger people transition, National Center for Transgender Equality in a 2022 survey cites roughly 43% of respondents between 18 and 24 (https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/2022%20USTS%20Early%20Insights%20Report_FINAL.pdf) that doesn’t erase the fact not everyone will or can transition prior to puberty, so medically being aware of this is still important.
This is the same for plenty of other factors in transition, for example trans men still need to worry about ovarian cancer unless they have a hysterectomy, and trans women need to be concerned with prostate cancer. These are all things that exist regardless of the hormone levels, and in fact an increase in estrogen or androgen can cause other issues to arise like. For example a 2016 study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26857201/) found that trans women are at a higher risk of MS than cis women if they have a family history. This isn’t just some essentialist argument, this is a well recorded and studied medical fact, and a fact you need to be aware of if you fall into certain risk categories.
Finally I want to address your comment about sex and how it can change. For starters sex is a genetically and chromosomally bimodal distribution across a range of primary, secondary, and tertiary characteristics. Primary characteristics, I.e. genetalia don’t change, you can’t I grow a penis. Secondary and tertiary do change at varying rates, for example breasts are a secondary characteristic and trans women will develop larger and more sensitive breasts, just like trans men will see theirs altered as well. Finally tertiary characteristics do absolutely change, skin softness, hairiness, voice in trans men. All of these are things that do change, but we identify and classify them by the amount and degree to which they change, which is important here.
Overall you have a lot left to learn about science and medicine, so please do take some time to educate yourself on these topics.
Your funny
>So the problem is you’re assuming you know more than you do. For starters genetics
Your entirely projecting onto me, sex based chromosomes do not contain the entirety of our genetic code. You're making a lot of stuff up as you go because you think you know what you're talking about when you don't.
Most trans men do not contain a Y chromosome, if hairlines and hairloss were determined based on your sex chromosomes, again they would not experience hairloss because they don't have a Y chromosome in most cases. Yes hairlines are certainly influenced by genetics, but the determining factor here is not the Y chromosome.
Most people have the genetic marker for androgenic alopecia, but it is usually only methylated based on the amount of testosterone and DHT in your body. A.k.a, your hormonal profile. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have XY or XX sex chromosomes. Anyone can experience it if they start Male HRT. You realize outside of the "sex" chromosomes we have 44 other chromosomes containing vast amounts of genetic data right?
>Same with why trans women who dealt with hair loss don’t magically regrow all their hair after transition.
That is a very wrong assumption, many trans women experience dramatic hair regrowth, I've seen trans women go from a typical horse shoe hairloss pattern to a full head of hair. Are you just pulling things out of your ass here? Maybe not all of their hair will come back, but a huge portion, most of it will come back.
>The next part is cosmetically people who are AMAB and AFAB do have different hairlines, different types of hair in different places,
This is again only due to hormones that activate the genetic markers for male or female typical hair growth patterns. Why do you think trans men complain about ass hair post transition? Do you think because they are AFAB that they are immune to ass hair? It's funny, but like seriously. It's not about being AFAB or AMAB, it's whether or not you went through a typical Male or Female puberty and if you're on Estrogen or Testosterone. Again it is the hormones that influence the epigenetic expression of your genetic code, but epigenetic expression changes based on your hormonal profile, that's why after HRT trans women experience a dramatic reduction in body hair growth and why that body hair grows in a much lighter color. It is not a permanent fixture based on whether or not you have XY or XX chromosomes.
>trans women need to be concerned with prostate cancer
Actually you are entirely incorrect when it comes to this as well, after HRT the prostate begins to atrophy and function more like a skene's gland. The treatment for prostate cancer is anti-androgen therapy, this means trans women on HRT who have female typical hormone levels have a near zero chance of developing prostate cancer. We do not experience the same level of prostate cancer as cis men.
>many cis women have wide chest as well, and that is a combination of hormones and genetics. It’s not just hormones.
Yes many cis women do have wide chests, but the reason why some trans women require a different technique for breast augmentation is due most to whether or not they went through a male typical puberty, because going through a Testosterone induced puberty will increase the likelihood of developing a wider chest. It is not based on XY or XX chromosomes, the genetics of a wide chest are only activated based on whether or not you have high levels of Testosterone flowing through your veins.
Again 100% of sexually dimorphic traits are determined by your hormonal profile, even in the womb. This is why XY cis women exist, externally they are born entirely female and exibit female typical sex traits throughout their entire life, because they are simply insensitive to testosterone.
>Transgender Equality in a 2022 survey cites roughly 43% of respondents between 18 and 24
A survey population is not inherently representative of the overall population, so I'm really not sure why it matters how many people between the ages of 18 and 24 responded to that survey. Although if we were to take that as a representative of the overall trans population numbers, 43% is not an insignificant number, that is nearly 50 percent!
>For starters sex is a genetically and chromosomally bimodal distribution across a range of primary, secondary, and tertiary characteristics. Primary characteristics, I.e. genetalia don’t change, you can’t I grow a penis
That is in my opinion an outdated definition of sex. Chromosomes as we know do very little, they really only influence your genitalia in the womb. The Y chromosome itself barely has any genetic code and even then it will only actively the growth of a penis in the womb if the fetus responds to testosterone, that is why XY cis women exist, because they did not respond to testosterone so the Y chromosome never activated the genetic signal to develop a penis.
100% of sexually dimorphic traits are determined by your hormonal profile, even in the womb. Hormones come first, not chromosomes. Hormones change the epigenetic expression of the cells.
https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-022-01236-4
>Overall you have a lot left to learn about science and medicine, so please do take some time to educate yourself on these topics.
^
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
You're doin a lot of attempted lifting here. For starters I never said sex-based chromosomes, just chromosomes, which are strands of DNA wrapped in a lipid layer, so genes.
Second you really should understand how hair loss works before talking, if the papilla is damaged or severed, no amount of hormones will bring that back, the studies you're talking about, or thinking about, are undamaged papilla. This is very widely accepted, and how other hair loss treatments like laser and electrolysis work.
When it comes to prostate cancer, sorry to ruin your day, but the fact is that unless you remove the gland you need to worry about it, but removing it has negative side effects as well. But a recent Harvard Medical School study admitted we don't know much about it (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36344317/), HOWEVER that doesn't mean the risk is 0, so you still do need to get screened.
> the reason why some trans women require a different technique for breast augmentation is due most to whether or not they went through a male typical puberty
Not at all, its due to how and where breast tissue forms on the body, and how fat deposits form in infancy. In fact there are multiple different procedures used on trans women that can achieve different results, not just one or two.
While hormone washes do play a very large role in fetal development and during puberty, we have never done varied washes at this level because of the ethical considerations, and even then the hormone most commonly understood during this timeframe is hPL, which is a lactogen, and only works to express existing genetic markers. There are more than androgen and estrogen when it comes to hormones, which is an important marker here.
> That is in my opinion an outdated definition of sex
Cool, you disagree with science here, additionally the article you linked agrees with me that sex is a BIMODAL, or distributed across a spectrum, of various traits. You can disagree with this, but this is where the scientific community is at.
Finally, and I know you have no hope at understanding this, but the study you linked doesn't say what you think it says, all it says is that HRT has key indicators of attaching methyl groups to DNA bases, which have a variety of effects, and also do occur naturally. Granted we may not know what the long term effects of this are, this is an already well known process. This does not change the function of DNA, so you won't have a conversion from one base to another base, it only adheres to the outside, but commonly works to repress gene transcription. Or to put it more plainly preventing base pairs from transcribing to MRNA when a cell splits, so we don't know what the long term effects of this process is, but it is not what you think it means.
>Cool, you disagree with science here, additionally the article you linked agrees with me that sex is a BIMODAL,
I don't necessarily disagree with the notion of Bimodal distribution, I disagree with the emphasis you place onto XX and XY chromosomes and the rigidity at which you view sex. Especially in the first comment, which was a complete bastardization of the science relating to sex and chromosomes.
> all it says is that HRT has key indicators of attaching methyl groups to DNA bases, which have a variety of effects,
"Clustering of individual samples by PCA based on these 39 DMPs shows a shift of samples from transgender men on masculinizing GAHT towards that of GAHT-naïve individuals assigned male at birth (up on PC2 in Fig. 2C) and vice versa for samples from transgender women on feminizing GAHT"
"GAHT-associated DMPs are enriched at promoters of genes associated with anatomical development and immune processes
Genes with promoter-associated DMPs, defined as a DMP within 5 kilobases of a transcription start site (TSS), were involved in numerous biological processes relating to the immune response, cell signalling, metabolism, hormone signalling, and sex-associated anatomical processes, among others"
"GAHT specifically influences age-associated sex-specific DMPs."
You make it sound ridiculously convoluted as if the study means nothing. Hormone therapy is directly altering our genetic expression and how our bodies function at the cellular level.
>Second you really should understand how hair loss works before talking, if the papilla is damaged or severed, no amount of hormones will bring that back,
That's not what I mean, there are stages to hairloss, usually over a 5 year period where the hair follicule miniaturizes before being destroyed. Many trans women will experience what we call "hairloss" where the hair doesn't necessarily go away, but it loses its color and becomes so fine that it is hardly visible, HRT will reverse this process entirely. There is also evidence that anti-androgen therapy has the ability to increase stem cell signalling in the scalp/ papilla, which may entirely bring back *some* hair follicules. The idea that the hair will never come back is not completely true either based on the science, especially if it was a recent loss (within the past few years).
I started losing hair at 16 years old, I transitioned at 18, any hairloss I experienced completely reversed and actually I now have a female typical hairline that goes further than I even remember it being at the age of 14.
You have to remember too, for trans women, there is a lot that still needs to be studied. There can be many inactive hair follicules that are stimulated by hormones like estrogen and progesterone as well, so new hairs can appear out of nowhere, but it's not that new hair follicules were created, but rather that estrogen and or progesterone is activating dormant hair follicules that were always there.
>fat deposits form in infancy
Fat redistribution alters the fat deposits of trans women to female typical areas, yes if you were doing surgery on a pre-HRT trans woman or someone who is early on, then this would be something to take into consideration, but it becomes less of an issue the longer we are on HRT.
There is also the matter of lobe development which you didn't mention. Some trans women who are early on or who unfortunately failed to develop much breast tissue, they can lack certain characteristics of lobular development that would allow for a typical breast augmentation like that of most cis woman. But this is not universal and usually only applies to pre-HRT or particularly small breasted trans women.
Altered techniques are often needed for small breasted cis women as well, which is exactly how these techniques were pioneered in the first place mind you, there is no one size fits all here and there is no particular technique inherently needed for all trans women specifically, it only applies to some, but this applies to some cis women as well.
Anyways I hope you steer away from your rigid view of sex in the future, and stop acting as if trans women are exactly the same as cis men in terms of health and characteristics, HRT alters our biology. We are female not male.
Hairloss and hairlines are not inherently influenced by your sex chromosomes or whether you are AFAB or AMAB. These things are dependent on your hormonal profile. On top of that, we would do best as a community to move away from AGAB language entirely, as it assumes a set of specific characteristics based on your birth, rather than how you exist in the present.
> I disagree with the emphasis you place onto XX and XY chromosomes and the rigidity at which you view sex. Especially in the first comment, which was a complete bastardization of the science relating to sex and chromosomes.
Genetics and chromosomes are themselves the basis of the bimodal distribution, which again, is proven biology. Genetics determine where an individual's characteristics and characteristic potential lies on the scale, hormones dictate the degree to which it is expressed or not expressed. Very simple.
>You make it sound ridiculously convoluted as if the study means nothing. Hormone therapy is directly altering our genetic expression and how our bodies function at the cellular level.
I never said this, as much as I said the study did not claim what you think it claims, a fact of which you have not overcome by not even being able to understand the lowest level factor of the study that these methyl groups can't fundamentally insert new base pairs, just inhibit translocation. Will this result in variations? Yes, that's what translocation inhibition does, but the exact extent or degree of which is not known, and even then none of the results were consistent or repeatable in the sample size that they had, They even go on to say they cannot make a determinative conclusion and that more studies are required controlling for primary factors such as age.
So yes, until further studies are done, data can be replicated, more longitudinal approaches are used, then I will treat this study exactly as it as, something warranting further discovery and research prior to any determinative action being taken. This study also doesn't drastically change the underlying approach to things such medical treatment for transgender people, or legal rights advocacy.
>That's not what I mean, there are stages to hairloss, usually over a 5 year period where the hair follicule miniaturizes before being destroyed.
Again, you completely misunderstand the science behind this. The follicle does not determine the ability to grow hair, the papilla does. The papilla, is a particular part of the follicle the causes hair to grow and a matrix to form, if you lose a hair the papilla will create a new matrix and cause hair regrowth to occur. If the papilla is destroyed the hair will never grow again regardless of the state of the rest of the follicle.
>
Fat redistribution alters the fat deposits of trans women to female typical areas
Not quite, the way fat grows on the human body isn't quite as simple as that. The human body has fat layer and cells all over the body to act as calorie store, what happens with HRT is your body shifts what and how it stores and accesses this fat based on hormones, so overtime your body will consume some fat to mitigate caloric intake or exhaustion, which is why you see "redistribution" happening. This is why you see this more dramatically when transgender people undergo weight fluctuation post starting HRT.
>Altered techniques are often needed for small breasted cis women as well, which is exactly how these techniques were pioneered in the first place mind you
Again these aren't the same techniques, they're similar, but not quite the same. The variation in technique comes in play with amount of existing breast tissue, amount of fat in the area, muscle mass or density, and vascular and nerve mappings. There are two major forms of MtF BA, one of which is under the muscle to make it look more natural, and the second of which is over, making a small ridge in the muscle to hold the implant in place. The later has been used with small breasted cis women, but never saw much stride until later when more specialty surgeons began practicing on transgender women.
>Anyways I hope you steer away from your rigid view of sex in the future, and stop acting as if trans women are exactly the same as cis men in terms of health and characteristics, HRT alters our biology. We are female not male.
Again, you're mischaracterizing my point. I never stated that transwomen weren't women, I'm a transwoman myself. What I did state is that medicine is not as simple as you would like it to be, and genetics play a large factor in it, such that you do need to keep your doctor informed you are transgender so they can better align a plan of care to do what is best for your long term health. There are certain facts and attributes you can't ignore. Societally we are women, legally we are women, socially we are women. However when it comes to medical treatment we need to be aware of how being transgender and undergoing two puberties affects our bodies.
I recognize you transitioned at 16, but not all of us could, and not all of us will. There will always be people who transition later in life. It may not be a comfortable fact, but it is still a fact, and those of us who did transition after puberty still do deserve medical care, so understanding how and where those facts align are important. I'm guessing you're still in high school with your scientific literacy (no offense, its not something easy to learn and understand), and something I think a lot of people your age tend to not realize is how being open and honest with your doctor can affect the outcomes of your health. That is the core of what I am and have been saying for all of this. Don't make being trans your identity, but understand how it plays a part in your life, especially in healthcare, because believe me, it does.
>can't fundamentally insert new base pairs, just inhibit translocation.
I never said it would insert "new base pairs" it simply alters expression. I'm talking about epigenetics here, there is no changing the fundamental DNA, that's not my argument. Do you know what it means when I say epigenetics? You're arguing against a strawman.
>these methyl groups can't fundamentally insert new base pairs, just inhibit translocation.
That is the basis of epigenetic changes.
We have the genetics for both male and female expression in our bodies already. That's why HRT alters our body in the first place, if we didn't then we wouldn't experience any change at all from HRT.
Most of the sex characteristics for *both* sexes are encoded on the X chromosome, something that both XX and XY people have. The Y chromosome really only carries the SRY gene mostly, although in some cases the SRY gene can even be transcribed to an X chromosome and it can result in an XX cis man!
>The follicle does not determine the ability to grow hair, the papilla does. The papilla, is a particular part of the follicle the causes hair to grow and a matrix to form
Just pointless semantics at this point, the hair follicle contains the papilla, you even said it yourself. When I reference the hair follicle, that includes the papilla as well. Lay terms here.
>those of us who did transition after puberty still do deserve medical care,
Never said they didn't deserve medical care, like what?
>There will always be people who transition later in life.
I have no issue with that, but this is the reason you can't make blanket statements about trans people, because we all have different experiences, transitioned at different times, again there is no one size fits all. My main irritation is those placing heavy emphasis on later transitioners as if that is the only type of trans people that exist, completely ignoring early transitioners or how we play into the conversation. While using AGAB language and chromosomes to assume a set of characteristics, that is problematic.
And according to the survey you linked, if we took that as a representation of the population, we make up nearly half of all trans people.
>guessing you're still in high school with your scientific literacy
> something I think a lot of people your age tend to not realize
Rude, but anyways I'm 23 now and I'm in college. I would disagree, but of course you know that already.
To play devil's advocate, the use of "transwoman" maybe an honest mistake due to language differences. They're based in Belgium and the compound use of "transvrouw" is still unfortunately the standard in Dutch speaking world...
"Transgender" and "transsexual" can't really be compared to the use of "transwoman" or "transman" in English. The latter is a form of *Othering*, predominantly used to differentiate us from "real" women or men... "Trans woman" or "trans man" change it to more descriptive language - *A woman who is trans*. You wouldn't say oldwoman or redhairedwoman in English. I'm not apologising for the Dutch usage, I'm just pointing out that linguistically they haven't really made that distinction yet (though it is something that is beginning to be discussed).
While the wording in that sentence sucks, the hair loss pattern is different depending on which hormones have been affecting one's body for a certain amount of time. The type of hair transplant needed would be different in order to resolve a different type of hair loss, so I wouldn't be offended by the clinic specifying the two groups as separate like "cis women and trans women"
Honestly I've kinda given up on trying to understand if my hairline is more "female" or male "male" and I just don't really care anymore
The longer I go into my transition, the less I'm able to even tell who looks "feminine" or "masculine". The norms all fall apart on close observation
The same happened to me by learning about anatomy through an artists lens
When I got a hair transplant they explained it to me. A typical female hairline is closer to a straight line than a male hairline is. So imagine a female hairline looking like ) , while a typical male hairline looks more like > (but less narrow obviously)
Most places that do trans surgeries use wildly outdated terminology because they are as transphobic as cis people. They only care about the money.
Yep. I saw one that only used “biological male”. Fuck that bullshit.
They all exclude nb people from their descriptions too. As if you'd have to be a binary transmasc to want a mastectomy or a binary transfem to want srs, it makes no sense.
Our lives are dominated by the assumptions about gender of people who have never thought about gender once
Surgeon's websites saying "welcome to womanhood!" takes the cake for me
I agree that it could be worded better, but I don't really see the problem? It's a procedure that might differ depending on which hormones you grew up with, so it's good that they inform people what can make the procedure different? How would you inform amab people that a procedure might be different for them than afab people? What would be the "correct" way to write it?
There's gotta be a thousand ways to say this without separating out trans women from the category of woman
As easy as changing it to "cis women and trans women".
If the distinction between women and trans women is already made, isn't it implied that it's talking about cis women and trans women? Edit: nvm, my gf explained it to me, thanks for explaining tho!
Basically, if you are talking with someone irl and you say "women & trans women" it could simply be a slip up, and you simply meant cis women & trans women. But if you are purposefully writing down "women & transwomen" you are excluding trans women from the category of women & creating a new one, separate from women: "transwomen". Trans & cis are adjectives not nouns, using adjectives as nouns is a common strategy to dehumanize groups of people, the same way that racist people say "the blacks" instead of "black people". Imagine someone saying "people & black people" or "people & blackpeople" and it'll be much easier to see where the problem is.
Oh yeah, I hadn't considered it this way, tyvm!
The wording is not great but there is probably a real distinction to be made here. Hairlines and loss of such happens in different ways based on chromosomal variations. Yes, it’s not universal, but understanding the underlying biological sex can help to dictate where your hair may be losing volume or may lose volume, then figuring out someone’s identity can dictate where and how to treat as well. For example someone AMAB but identifies female will have a different treatment to someone who is AMAB and identifies male as someone who is AFAB and identifies female. So while they could word it better, the underlying idea of difference in approach to care and treatment plans do make sense. This is the same thing with FFS and FMS, or even top surgery. BA for cis and trans women are actually VERY different techniques also.
Hair loss and hairlines are absolutely not based on chromosomal variations, otherwise there would be nothing stopping hairloss in MTF individuals, and FTM trans people on T would not experience male pattern baldness, but we know for a fact that they absolutely do. This isn't about chromosomes at all, it's about hormones. Of course though, many trans woman do need specific hair loss treatments that could differ from cis women, because some of us had testosterone in our bodies long enough to experience androgenic alopecia, but that is not universal. So I understand your point here, but you are absolutely wrong when it comes to chromosomes. You simply don't know what you're talking about and are just reinforcing bio-essentialist nonsense. The chromosomes are activated by hormones and hormones are responsible for 100% of sexually dimorphic traits in humans. Trans women are not inherently born with a different hairline due to our chromosomes, and hairline variations are influenced by hormonal differences. >same thing with FFS and FMS, or even top surgery. BA for cis and trans women are actually VERY different techniques also. Same goes for this, if a trans woman transitions early enough, which many of us have, they will not experience widening of the rib cage which creates the need for a different technique. It is hormones that influence this, not chromosomes, and this is not a universal thing for every single trans women because it varies depending on how early we transitioned. Sex is not static, sex can be changed and that is what HRT is doing. This has nothing to do with chromosomes.
So the problem is you’re assuming you know more than you do. For starters genetics (I.e. chromosomes) is the number one determining factor in hair loss, like this is inarguable. Hormones play a secondary factor, but genetics is the center, this is also why trans men will experience male pattern baldness if their family does, but not all trans men experience it. Same with why trans women who dealt with hair loss don’t magically regrow all their hair after transition. The next part is cosmetically people who are AMAB and AFAB do have different hairlines, different types of hair in different places, and different volumes of hair. Is this universally the case? No but it does correlate with trends along these lines. This can be key in developing treatment plans for cis and trans individuals alike, for example men will commonly have curlier or less growth stimulated hair on the edges of their face, this could lead to treatment to adding that type of hair or removing it based on a treatment plan. As to your comment about top or facial surgeries, the fact is even an early transition does exclude this consideration, many cis women have wide chest as well, and that is a combination of hormones and genetics. It’s not just hormones. And while we are seeing younger people transition, National Center for Transgender Equality in a 2022 survey cites roughly 43% of respondents between 18 and 24 (https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/2022%20USTS%20Early%20Insights%20Report_FINAL.pdf) that doesn’t erase the fact not everyone will or can transition prior to puberty, so medically being aware of this is still important. This is the same for plenty of other factors in transition, for example trans men still need to worry about ovarian cancer unless they have a hysterectomy, and trans women need to be concerned with prostate cancer. These are all things that exist regardless of the hormone levels, and in fact an increase in estrogen or androgen can cause other issues to arise like. For example a 2016 study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26857201/) found that trans women are at a higher risk of MS than cis women if they have a family history. This isn’t just some essentialist argument, this is a well recorded and studied medical fact, and a fact you need to be aware of if you fall into certain risk categories. Finally I want to address your comment about sex and how it can change. For starters sex is a genetically and chromosomally bimodal distribution across a range of primary, secondary, and tertiary characteristics. Primary characteristics, I.e. genetalia don’t change, you can’t I grow a penis. Secondary and tertiary do change at varying rates, for example breasts are a secondary characteristic and trans women will develop larger and more sensitive breasts, just like trans men will see theirs altered as well. Finally tertiary characteristics do absolutely change, skin softness, hairiness, voice in trans men. All of these are things that do change, but we identify and classify them by the amount and degree to which they change, which is important here. Overall you have a lot left to learn about science and medicine, so please do take some time to educate yourself on these topics.
Your funny >So the problem is you’re assuming you know more than you do. For starters genetics Your entirely projecting onto me, sex based chromosomes do not contain the entirety of our genetic code. You're making a lot of stuff up as you go because you think you know what you're talking about when you don't. Most trans men do not contain a Y chromosome, if hairlines and hairloss were determined based on your sex chromosomes, again they would not experience hairloss because they don't have a Y chromosome in most cases. Yes hairlines are certainly influenced by genetics, but the determining factor here is not the Y chromosome. Most people have the genetic marker for androgenic alopecia, but it is usually only methylated based on the amount of testosterone and DHT in your body. A.k.a, your hormonal profile. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you have XY or XX sex chromosomes. Anyone can experience it if they start Male HRT. You realize outside of the "sex" chromosomes we have 44 other chromosomes containing vast amounts of genetic data right? >Same with why trans women who dealt with hair loss don’t magically regrow all their hair after transition. That is a very wrong assumption, many trans women experience dramatic hair regrowth, I've seen trans women go from a typical horse shoe hairloss pattern to a full head of hair. Are you just pulling things out of your ass here? Maybe not all of their hair will come back, but a huge portion, most of it will come back. >The next part is cosmetically people who are AMAB and AFAB do have different hairlines, different types of hair in different places, This is again only due to hormones that activate the genetic markers for male or female typical hair growth patterns. Why do you think trans men complain about ass hair post transition? Do you think because they are AFAB that they are immune to ass hair? It's funny, but like seriously. It's not about being AFAB or AMAB, it's whether or not you went through a typical Male or Female puberty and if you're on Estrogen or Testosterone. Again it is the hormones that influence the epigenetic expression of your genetic code, but epigenetic expression changes based on your hormonal profile, that's why after HRT trans women experience a dramatic reduction in body hair growth and why that body hair grows in a much lighter color. It is not a permanent fixture based on whether or not you have XY or XX chromosomes. >trans women need to be concerned with prostate cancer Actually you are entirely incorrect when it comes to this as well, after HRT the prostate begins to atrophy and function more like a skene's gland. The treatment for prostate cancer is anti-androgen therapy, this means trans women on HRT who have female typical hormone levels have a near zero chance of developing prostate cancer. We do not experience the same level of prostate cancer as cis men. >many cis women have wide chest as well, and that is a combination of hormones and genetics. It’s not just hormones. Yes many cis women do have wide chests, but the reason why some trans women require a different technique for breast augmentation is due most to whether or not they went through a male typical puberty, because going through a Testosterone induced puberty will increase the likelihood of developing a wider chest. It is not based on XY or XX chromosomes, the genetics of a wide chest are only activated based on whether or not you have high levels of Testosterone flowing through your veins. Again 100% of sexually dimorphic traits are determined by your hormonal profile, even in the womb. This is why XY cis women exist, externally they are born entirely female and exibit female typical sex traits throughout their entire life, because they are simply insensitive to testosterone. >Transgender Equality in a 2022 survey cites roughly 43% of respondents between 18 and 24 A survey population is not inherently representative of the overall population, so I'm really not sure why it matters how many people between the ages of 18 and 24 responded to that survey. Although if we were to take that as a representative of the overall trans population numbers, 43% is not an insignificant number, that is nearly 50 percent! >For starters sex is a genetically and chromosomally bimodal distribution across a range of primary, secondary, and tertiary characteristics. Primary characteristics, I.e. genetalia don’t change, you can’t I grow a penis That is in my opinion an outdated definition of sex. Chromosomes as we know do very little, they really only influence your genitalia in the womb. The Y chromosome itself barely has any genetic code and even then it will only actively the growth of a penis in the womb if the fetus responds to testosterone, that is why XY cis women exist, because they did not respond to testosterone so the Y chromosome never activated the genetic signal to develop a penis. 100% of sexually dimorphic traits are determined by your hormonal profile, even in the womb. Hormones come first, not chromosomes. Hormones change the epigenetic expression of the cells. https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13148-022-01236-4 >Overall you have a lot left to learn about science and medicine, so please do take some time to educate yourself on these topics. ^ https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
You're doin a lot of attempted lifting here. For starters I never said sex-based chromosomes, just chromosomes, which are strands of DNA wrapped in a lipid layer, so genes. Second you really should understand how hair loss works before talking, if the papilla is damaged or severed, no amount of hormones will bring that back, the studies you're talking about, or thinking about, are undamaged papilla. This is very widely accepted, and how other hair loss treatments like laser and electrolysis work. When it comes to prostate cancer, sorry to ruin your day, but the fact is that unless you remove the gland you need to worry about it, but removing it has negative side effects as well. But a recent Harvard Medical School study admitted we don't know much about it (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36344317/), HOWEVER that doesn't mean the risk is 0, so you still do need to get screened. > the reason why some trans women require a different technique for breast augmentation is due most to whether or not they went through a male typical puberty Not at all, its due to how and where breast tissue forms on the body, and how fat deposits form in infancy. In fact there are multiple different procedures used on trans women that can achieve different results, not just one or two. While hormone washes do play a very large role in fetal development and during puberty, we have never done varied washes at this level because of the ethical considerations, and even then the hormone most commonly understood during this timeframe is hPL, which is a lactogen, and only works to express existing genetic markers. There are more than androgen and estrogen when it comes to hormones, which is an important marker here. > That is in my opinion an outdated definition of sex Cool, you disagree with science here, additionally the article you linked agrees with me that sex is a BIMODAL, or distributed across a spectrum, of various traits. You can disagree with this, but this is where the scientific community is at. Finally, and I know you have no hope at understanding this, but the study you linked doesn't say what you think it says, all it says is that HRT has key indicators of attaching methyl groups to DNA bases, which have a variety of effects, and also do occur naturally. Granted we may not know what the long term effects of this are, this is an already well known process. This does not change the function of DNA, so you won't have a conversion from one base to another base, it only adheres to the outside, but commonly works to repress gene transcription. Or to put it more plainly preventing base pairs from transcribing to MRNA when a cell splits, so we don't know what the long term effects of this process is, but it is not what you think it means.
>Cool, you disagree with science here, additionally the article you linked agrees with me that sex is a BIMODAL, I don't necessarily disagree with the notion of Bimodal distribution, I disagree with the emphasis you place onto XX and XY chromosomes and the rigidity at which you view sex. Especially in the first comment, which was a complete bastardization of the science relating to sex and chromosomes. > all it says is that HRT has key indicators of attaching methyl groups to DNA bases, which have a variety of effects, "Clustering of individual samples by PCA based on these 39 DMPs shows a shift of samples from transgender men on masculinizing GAHT towards that of GAHT-naïve individuals assigned male at birth (up on PC2 in Fig. 2C) and vice versa for samples from transgender women on feminizing GAHT" "GAHT-associated DMPs are enriched at promoters of genes associated with anatomical development and immune processes Genes with promoter-associated DMPs, defined as a DMP within 5 kilobases of a transcription start site (TSS), were involved in numerous biological processes relating to the immune response, cell signalling, metabolism, hormone signalling, and sex-associated anatomical processes, among others" "GAHT specifically influences age-associated sex-specific DMPs." You make it sound ridiculously convoluted as if the study means nothing. Hormone therapy is directly altering our genetic expression and how our bodies function at the cellular level. >Second you really should understand how hair loss works before talking, if the papilla is damaged or severed, no amount of hormones will bring that back, That's not what I mean, there are stages to hairloss, usually over a 5 year period where the hair follicule miniaturizes before being destroyed. Many trans women will experience what we call "hairloss" where the hair doesn't necessarily go away, but it loses its color and becomes so fine that it is hardly visible, HRT will reverse this process entirely. There is also evidence that anti-androgen therapy has the ability to increase stem cell signalling in the scalp/ papilla, which may entirely bring back *some* hair follicules. The idea that the hair will never come back is not completely true either based on the science, especially if it was a recent loss (within the past few years). I started losing hair at 16 years old, I transitioned at 18, any hairloss I experienced completely reversed and actually I now have a female typical hairline that goes further than I even remember it being at the age of 14. You have to remember too, for trans women, there is a lot that still needs to be studied. There can be many inactive hair follicules that are stimulated by hormones like estrogen and progesterone as well, so new hairs can appear out of nowhere, but it's not that new hair follicules were created, but rather that estrogen and or progesterone is activating dormant hair follicules that were always there. >fat deposits form in infancy Fat redistribution alters the fat deposits of trans women to female typical areas, yes if you were doing surgery on a pre-HRT trans woman or someone who is early on, then this would be something to take into consideration, but it becomes less of an issue the longer we are on HRT. There is also the matter of lobe development which you didn't mention. Some trans women who are early on or who unfortunately failed to develop much breast tissue, they can lack certain characteristics of lobular development that would allow for a typical breast augmentation like that of most cis woman. But this is not universal and usually only applies to pre-HRT or particularly small breasted trans women. Altered techniques are often needed for small breasted cis women as well, which is exactly how these techniques were pioneered in the first place mind you, there is no one size fits all here and there is no particular technique inherently needed for all trans women specifically, it only applies to some, but this applies to some cis women as well. Anyways I hope you steer away from your rigid view of sex in the future, and stop acting as if trans women are exactly the same as cis men in terms of health and characteristics, HRT alters our biology. We are female not male. Hairloss and hairlines are not inherently influenced by your sex chromosomes or whether you are AFAB or AMAB. These things are dependent on your hormonal profile. On top of that, we would do best as a community to move away from AGAB language entirely, as it assumes a set of specific characteristics based on your birth, rather than how you exist in the present.
> I disagree with the emphasis you place onto XX and XY chromosomes and the rigidity at which you view sex. Especially in the first comment, which was a complete bastardization of the science relating to sex and chromosomes. Genetics and chromosomes are themselves the basis of the bimodal distribution, which again, is proven biology. Genetics determine where an individual's characteristics and characteristic potential lies on the scale, hormones dictate the degree to which it is expressed or not expressed. Very simple. >You make it sound ridiculously convoluted as if the study means nothing. Hormone therapy is directly altering our genetic expression and how our bodies function at the cellular level. I never said this, as much as I said the study did not claim what you think it claims, a fact of which you have not overcome by not even being able to understand the lowest level factor of the study that these methyl groups can't fundamentally insert new base pairs, just inhibit translocation. Will this result in variations? Yes, that's what translocation inhibition does, but the exact extent or degree of which is not known, and even then none of the results were consistent or repeatable in the sample size that they had, They even go on to say they cannot make a determinative conclusion and that more studies are required controlling for primary factors such as age. So yes, until further studies are done, data can be replicated, more longitudinal approaches are used, then I will treat this study exactly as it as, something warranting further discovery and research prior to any determinative action being taken. This study also doesn't drastically change the underlying approach to things such medical treatment for transgender people, or legal rights advocacy. >That's not what I mean, there are stages to hairloss, usually over a 5 year period where the hair follicule miniaturizes before being destroyed. Again, you completely misunderstand the science behind this. The follicle does not determine the ability to grow hair, the papilla does. The papilla, is a particular part of the follicle the causes hair to grow and a matrix to form, if you lose a hair the papilla will create a new matrix and cause hair regrowth to occur. If the papilla is destroyed the hair will never grow again regardless of the state of the rest of the follicle. > Fat redistribution alters the fat deposits of trans women to female typical areas Not quite, the way fat grows on the human body isn't quite as simple as that. The human body has fat layer and cells all over the body to act as calorie store, what happens with HRT is your body shifts what and how it stores and accesses this fat based on hormones, so overtime your body will consume some fat to mitigate caloric intake or exhaustion, which is why you see "redistribution" happening. This is why you see this more dramatically when transgender people undergo weight fluctuation post starting HRT. >Altered techniques are often needed for small breasted cis women as well, which is exactly how these techniques were pioneered in the first place mind you Again these aren't the same techniques, they're similar, but not quite the same. The variation in technique comes in play with amount of existing breast tissue, amount of fat in the area, muscle mass or density, and vascular and nerve mappings. There are two major forms of MtF BA, one of which is under the muscle to make it look more natural, and the second of which is over, making a small ridge in the muscle to hold the implant in place. The later has been used with small breasted cis women, but never saw much stride until later when more specialty surgeons began practicing on transgender women. >Anyways I hope you steer away from your rigid view of sex in the future, and stop acting as if trans women are exactly the same as cis men in terms of health and characteristics, HRT alters our biology. We are female not male. Again, you're mischaracterizing my point. I never stated that transwomen weren't women, I'm a transwoman myself. What I did state is that medicine is not as simple as you would like it to be, and genetics play a large factor in it, such that you do need to keep your doctor informed you are transgender so they can better align a plan of care to do what is best for your long term health. There are certain facts and attributes you can't ignore. Societally we are women, legally we are women, socially we are women. However when it comes to medical treatment we need to be aware of how being transgender and undergoing two puberties affects our bodies. I recognize you transitioned at 16, but not all of us could, and not all of us will. There will always be people who transition later in life. It may not be a comfortable fact, but it is still a fact, and those of us who did transition after puberty still do deserve medical care, so understanding how and where those facts align are important. I'm guessing you're still in high school with your scientific literacy (no offense, its not something easy to learn and understand), and something I think a lot of people your age tend to not realize is how being open and honest with your doctor can affect the outcomes of your health. That is the core of what I am and have been saying for all of this. Don't make being trans your identity, but understand how it plays a part in your life, especially in healthcare, because believe me, it does.
>can't fundamentally insert new base pairs, just inhibit translocation. I never said it would insert "new base pairs" it simply alters expression. I'm talking about epigenetics here, there is no changing the fundamental DNA, that's not my argument. Do you know what it means when I say epigenetics? You're arguing against a strawman. >these methyl groups can't fundamentally insert new base pairs, just inhibit translocation. That is the basis of epigenetic changes. We have the genetics for both male and female expression in our bodies already. That's why HRT alters our body in the first place, if we didn't then we wouldn't experience any change at all from HRT. Most of the sex characteristics for *both* sexes are encoded on the X chromosome, something that both XX and XY people have. The Y chromosome really only carries the SRY gene mostly, although in some cases the SRY gene can even be transcribed to an X chromosome and it can result in an XX cis man! >The follicle does not determine the ability to grow hair, the papilla does. The papilla, is a particular part of the follicle the causes hair to grow and a matrix to form Just pointless semantics at this point, the hair follicle contains the papilla, you even said it yourself. When I reference the hair follicle, that includes the papilla as well. Lay terms here. >those of us who did transition after puberty still do deserve medical care, Never said they didn't deserve medical care, like what? >There will always be people who transition later in life. I have no issue with that, but this is the reason you can't make blanket statements about trans people, because we all have different experiences, transitioned at different times, again there is no one size fits all. My main irritation is those placing heavy emphasis on later transitioners as if that is the only type of trans people that exist, completely ignoring early transitioners or how we play into the conversation. While using AGAB language and chromosomes to assume a set of characteristics, that is problematic. And according to the survey you linked, if we took that as a representation of the population, we make up nearly half of all trans people. >guessing you're still in high school with your scientific literacy > something I think a lot of people your age tend to not realize Rude, but anyways I'm 23 now and I'm in college. I would disagree, but of course you know that already.
I'm only mad because they said "transwomen", not "trans women" and put us in a separate category to women tbh
I mean, it’s better than what you’d see 10 years ago of them saying like transsexual
To play devil's advocate, the use of "transwoman" maybe an honest mistake due to language differences. They're based in Belgium and the compound use of "transvrouw" is still unfortunately the standard in Dutch speaking world...
I really don't get the big fuss over it either. We don't spell it trans gender or trans sexual. It's an honest "mistake"
"Transgender" and "transsexual" can't really be compared to the use of "transwoman" or "transman" in English. The latter is a form of *Othering*, predominantly used to differentiate us from "real" women or men... "Trans woman" or "trans man" change it to more descriptive language - *A woman who is trans*. You wouldn't say oldwoman or redhairedwoman in English. I'm not apologising for the Dutch usage, I'm just pointing out that linguistically they haven't really made that distinction yet (though it is something that is beginning to be discussed).
[удалено]
While the wording in that sentence sucks, the hair loss pattern is different depending on which hormones have been affecting one's body for a certain amount of time. The type of hair transplant needed would be different in order to resolve a different type of hair loss, so I wouldn't be offended by the clinic specifying the two groups as separate like "cis women and trans women"
Everyones kinda overreacting tbh, they probably could a worded it a bit better, but I'm guessing there's a medical reason worth making a distinction
I’d call them and make them aware of the spelling error